Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 978 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1949874
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq
    Unfortunately seems we are barely arguing anymore
    I never said it’s a magic get out of jail free card. I said it’s my opinion that they had the legal right to do what they did based on my chosen understanding of the second amendment. My OPINION.
    Why didn’t anyone use it as a defense?
    1) don’t know if anyone who was rioting has any clue this exists
    2) I fully agree that ultimately a court will be deciding.
    I think it has a zero percent chance of winning in court ( perhaps even less as it might tick off the judge / jury and make the penalty worse)
    So yeah it wouldn’t be sound legal advice to tell someone to use this as a defense
    Doesn’t change my opinion that it is true though
    I think politically if a court agreed to such a thing it would unleash who knows what.

    So I think In summary
    We are arguing whether this is the correct interpretation of the second amendment.
    But if it is
    We both agree using it here would be an application of the law, not the law itself.
    We both agree it would end up in court
    We both agree the defendant would lose.
    So what are we arguing about?

    I like spicy cholent

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1949811
    klugeryid
    Participant

    1) There is no such law
    Fine. We can disagree as to the intent of the second amendment.
    I didn’t make it up, and I said all along there may be others who don’t agree but I choose to go with this one.
    2) Even if there were The court applies the law.
    BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!
    that’s what I have been trying to get you to understand all along.

    You list all sorts of variables for the knife case to try to obfuscate the issue (see not just me!). It really isnt complicated the law is (not a verbatim quote ) “No killing unless in self defense”
    Who gets to decide what is self defense ? the court. easy.
    Really. So when the guy is coming at his victim with knife upraised
    The victim tells him, ”hang tight, let me just make a quick call to my local court to see if I can kill you in self defense right now. BTW can you tell me the exact specifications of your knife because they will need to know. Also how much do you weigh?
    OMG! It’s after the close of business 2pm Wednesday erev Thanksgiving. The court is closed till Monday morning.
    Mr murderer, can you please come back around 12 next Monday?
    I should know by then if I’m allowed to kill you in self defense.

    That’s how you see this played out?
    Glad I don’t live in your country.
    I see it that the law says self defense is permitted. I see the situation in in currently and I make a quick decision based on how I think the law applies to my specific scenario.
    I don’t worry about the fact that I will not know how to answer in every other scenario. It really makes no difference.

    Same here.
    The law (according to my chosen constitutional scholar) allows overthrow of tyrannical government.
    I, decide that the government stealing the vote fits the bill. Bingo I can act on it. (legal disclaimer. not I personally .I think it’s a foolish course of action because it’s going to land you in jail or worse)
    Do I know if a different situation that you are curious about, also fits the bill of this law?
    Dunno. Come over shabbos after the cholent. If I can keep my eyes open we can schmooze about it. Whats the difference??

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1949696
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq,
    The aha I got you was not supposed to mean I got you rather it was what you would tell me when I say I don’t know the answer however you say that you know the answer so I asked you what about a 6.2 in knife 6.3 6.4 6.87 1259 6.351 are there laws for those how about a serrated knife how about a serrated knife missing two teeth missing three teeth how about a dull knife what if it’s sharp enough to cut a cucumber but not sharp enough to cut a tomato what if it can cut a hamburger but not a bread what if the attacker weighs 290 lb what if the attacker weighs 93 lb what if the victim is fat so the knife can’t get through what if the victim is thin so you will say that the court will decide because I don’t believe that there are laws for every one of these and thousands more variables that can be made in a single instance of one person attacking another with a knife if you need the court to decide then that is not a law that is an application of a law which is what I am saying the law gives basic parameters then the law needs to be applied. Here to the law states that the citizenry has the right to overthrow a tyrannical government the application is the question I said it certainly applies in a case where it is having its vote stolen you countered what about the BLM movement I said I don’t know for sure how to apply the law in that case you are responding the court can decide of course the court can decide but it hasn’t decided yet so therefore that is not yet a law that is an application of a law and until it becomes law my opinion is just as valid as the opinion of the jurists who will make it law if it becomes a court case

    Perhaps the reason you cannot come up with any cases where the courts allowed arms Uprising against the government is because until now we never had a tyrannical government in the United States of America so the lack of case to show me only proves that this law never needed to be applied it does not in any way prove that I am wrong in what I am saying perhaps I am wrong but your rejoinder does not in any way even address it again because the law was never needed to be applied due to the lack of tyrannical United States government today we have a tyrannical United States government we have a government which has no problem shutting down the rights of private citizens in many many many fashions when somebody in Brooklyn New York rose up against the government shutdowns of all public Recreation that possibly in my opinion correctly was allowed and would have been allowed with armed Insurrection as well due to the fact that the government was engaging in massive governmental overreach which is in my opinion I am going with the opinion of that scholarly article the point of the Second Amendment you don’t agree that that’s the point of the Second Amendment that’s fine then we have a fundamental disagreement in the point of the Second Amendment and I am not a constitutional scholar so I will leave it at that

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1949550
    klugeryid
    Participant

    they elive (rightly or wrongly) that the Govt is tyrannical (in their treatment on blacks) as such they have a RIGHT to rise up in armed , violent rebellion, even killing cops if necessary.
    Cute what you did there
    But it’s two separate points
    We will take them individually and clear them both

    Can they rise up in armed rebellion
    Yes, provided two conditions
    They are going against the entity (and people) that wronged them (such as the capital rioters attacking the people they believed were behind the plot to steal the vote) and not against random strangers
    They are actively being wronged, such as the capital rioters having their rightfully elected president taken away to be replaced by someone whom they will be subjected to who was not lawfully elected as opposed to rioting because once upon a time there were people in the same geographical area who oppressed people who happen to share the same skin pigmentation.
    I mean Biden is an assaulter. And an adulterer too.
    So does that mean that automatically the new senator from Delaware is also??
    As to the police.
    If they are part of the terrible issue, then yes. But if they are there to protect other citizens property or they are being attacked simply because their uniform looks like the uniform of someone else who did tyranny, well no. They have no right.

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1949487
    klugeryid
    Participant

    If someone is coming at me with a machete I think it’s clear I can kill them
    If they are coming at me with a plastic knife I can’t.
    So what about a six inch steak knife?
    I don’t know.
    A-ha! Got you! If you can’t answer that, obviously your not clear on the issue! So how can you say you can kill the guy attacking you with a machete??

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1949485
    klugeryid
    Participant

    WHO gets to decide?
    As the famous line goes
    When you see it you know it.
    Your evading my point.
    I’m not the one who made the law. It’s on the books. I think the government usurping the people’s vote is about as tyrannical as you can get. So I think it’s a slam dunk that that makes the cut.
    Is blm also correct?
    I don’t know, when Biden gathers his votes for Kamilas next term, you can ask the founders

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1949464
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq
    You want me to answer, I’ll try though I have a lot going on plus your last post wasn’t so clear to me.

    My understanding.
    (important to differentiate, my statement about the intent of the second amendment is not me speaking. It is me applying supposedly scholarly decisions, to a specific instance.)
    Tyranny is not anything you don’t like.
    If the government were to abolish voting. Nancy Pelosi will decide our next president. I assume (totally conjecture) most people would agree with me that that fits the definition of tyranny.
    IF you agree, then , stealing the election is exactly the same.
    However the government in 1619 being racist and murderous to blacks does not in any way translate into making the current government tyrannical.
    So to blm in 2020/2021 because up r to 50 years ago the Government t was tyrannical is lunacy.
    Perhaps if you want to go protest in the cemeteries, that would be appropriate. But of course they don’t want to do that Because that would upset the Biden voters.

    More maybe later if I have time

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1949261
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Fair enough, sorry for putting you on the spot. 8ts an argument I’ve heard before which while fine in theory, falls apart quickly in practice. I was hoping you’d flesh it out a bit more.

    Your not putting me on the spot, I have no need to know the answer because it’s not germane to my point
    It’s a distraction meant to obfuscate lack of a cogent direct rational rejoinder.
    I choose not to engage. See my previous post where I explained in detail.

    The idea that any individual person has constitutional right to rise up against the govt if he thinks they are tyrannical is a position that stretches the imagination to the point thst most would acknowledge it can’t be true.
    Total conjecture. I disagree. Most haven’t thought about it, is my opinion.

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1949178
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Remember that compound in Texas? Waco?”
    Yes I do, there have been plenty of armed uprisings in US history. I never heard anyone say that is their right. Interesting .
    Possibly I have the wrong ”compound ”
    I just remember there was an armed standoff between a group in a compound, heavily armed, and the government. I believe one of their claims was this.
    But it’s irrelevant. Even if nobody claimed it, my contention is either correct or incorrect by the facts. It’s irrelevant to the veracity of it, whether someone tried to use that claim.

    Though, to clarify, although I would lose it doesn’t make me wrong (obviously).
    And not just Waco, I suppose all the violent BLM protesters are right too,
    No. They were trashing private citizens property. I’m not aware of any right to destroy someone else private property.
    You can rise against the government.

    they elive (rightly or wrongly) that the Govt is tyrannical (in their treatment on blacks) as such they have a RIGHT to rise up in armed , violent rebellion, even killing cops if necessary. Is this correct?
    I don’t know. Maybe yes maybe no. I pointed out that this is the way at least some constitutional scholars understand the intent of the second amendment .
    I personally think that makes sense. So I choose to accept their understanding.
    The fact that off the cuff I can’t give you clear guidelines to a specific scenario, doesn’t change anything.
    Do you agree that that is the intent of the second amendment?
    If yes, so you give the parameters.
    If no, argue that point, that what I said is factually incorrect and there is no such right.
    But throwing in a specific instance and me not knowing the answer doesn’t do anything.
    (to clarify, had I made up that statement about the right to oppose the government, you can throw situations at me and if I can’t clarify, you can then rejoinder, so how can you possibly try to create such an ambiguous law, and perhaps you can even say, hey buddy according to your law, the following would be OK, you OK with that? And perhaps that would be enough to convince me to rescind it. But here, the law is on the books since this countries inception. I’m claiming it applies to situation a (capital riot) your rejoinder of ”so would you say it also applies to b (blm) ” is completely irrelevant)

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1948976
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq
    Here goes. Don’t know why I’m doing it, it’s not healthy but I can’t resist

    How does this constitutional right to overthrow the Government work?

    I f I decide My taxes are too high and are tyrannical do I have a right to defend myself and property by shooting any IRS agents who try to take it?
    Yes. You probably do. Remember that compound in Texas? Waco?
    Your probably going to lose if it’s just you though, as the government won’t take too kindly, so it’s sort of self selecting. You will only succeed if enough others agree with you. Sort of like this ”treasonous attempt to overthrow the US government,” by having a few hundred people ransack the capital building was doomed to fail from the start

    thanks

    Also your post is peppered with a few inaccuracies

    ” THAT is what created the frustration and anger to boil over into this riot, not some single speech by trump.”

    No not a single speech.
    Got me!!!
    So change it to
    Not those speeches by trump. Your missing the forest for the tree. My point was and is, it was the medias treatment of trump which fertilized the soil and irrigated it, and anything else necessary, to allow trumps speeches to have this result. (according to those who say it’s his fault)

    IT was months of saying the same, in fact he said it before the election took place, he said it before the 2016 election took place as well, sadly many of his supporters follow him no matter what. He said it so it must be true .
    No. Those on the left who demonize every move trump made over the last 4-5 years claim his followers move in lockstep, believing in every glorious utterance he makes.
    Were you to so much as actually listen to what he says and think about it, you would realize, that,
    A)his followers don’t ”always ”believe every thing he says
    And
    B) they do believe much of what he says because shockingly enough, most of what he says is true and common sense and reasonable.! Like the kid who said the emperor had no clothes. Everyone of high intelligence like Reb Eliezer ”knew” the kid was crazy. But guess what? He wasn’t!! He was just saying the plain unvarnished truth! So too Mr trump.

    so yes many of them believed there was fraud,
    There was.
    but no not from a single speech.

    BTW THIS is what what Trump did was so terrible. Yes, many of them think they were doing the right thing, the President said there was fraud, as many of them claimed. Your argument works to defend them, not Trump. Trump knows there was no significant fraud
    ”conjecture/reflection alert!!!!
    No. Actually I think, like most rational people Do, trump believes the election was stolen.
    He (He would have hired real lawyers and presented his evidence if it were real .)
    Probably he couldn’t. Most lawyers are
    Educated in liberal colleges and hate trump, and
    Those who don’t are afraid of cancel culture and even their own and families personal safety.
    Plus their chance of success was slim to none being as it is taking on the entire media who said from the get go that his claims are
    Incendiary
    False
    Misleading
    Unsubstantiated
    Etc….
    So you know you are taking on a huge challenge, the entire political establishment is spineless and almost nobody will stand with you.
    Why would any lawyer want such a thankless task. That’s why he couldn’t get anyone else

    I think I may agree with you on the rioters. What do we want for them, they are not very inteeligent
    Cute that this word is misspelled. (just cute, we all make clumsy typos)
    But I don’t believe that must be the case. Perhaps they are intelligent and actually believe the election was stolen. or sophisticated, if they are told there was fraud they believe it. The guy who told these bozos over and over that there country is being stolen, and they have to fight ot keep it should be held accountable, not them.
    I ask you, if it was possible to steal the election from trump, do you for a moment believe the left would not do it?
    Did they really have rolls showing hiding Biden ahead by ten points all over?? I don’t believe that. I believe the media is totally in the tank for the dems , I think their polls were completely made up, I mean they conducted them but didn’t even study their data. Just made up the numbers. So if they had a chance or Nancy had one, to steal the election,I think it’s for sure they would. So for me the question is only could they.
    When you see what took place, you realize, they very well could have. Ergo, they did!

    “, because statistical based on all signs before the election it was going to be a trump landslide.”
    Not sure what you mean, Most polls showed biden winning.
    See above. Most polls were wildly off. Till right before then suddenly they got very tight.
    The pundits who had accurately predicted past elections (including 2016) predicted biden winning
    Only if you searched on Google. If you used duckduckgo suddenly there were plenty who thought it was going to be from close to a trump landslide. Including some who actually made it through the Google wall.
    . what signs are you referring to? See above

    And please please please don;t use any signs ignoring Covid “oh before covid Economy was great …..” Sadly Covid happened, and can’t just be disregarded (if only!)
    Agreed

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1948716
    klugeryid
    Participant

    RE
    Thanks for the gratuitous dig, really showcases the middos necessary to call yourself Reb.
    But I digress.
    Be still my fluttering heart!!!!
    EVEN mich McConnell agrees that there was no votes fraud.
    Wow! And mr voter fraud expert McConnell did exactly how much investigating to come to his conclusion??
    When exactly did he do this extensive investigation?
    Or do you mean to say
    McConnell says I don’t want to think about the possibility of votes fraud and it’s massive ramifications so I’ll just say there was none and fools like Reb Eliezer will take my word as gold.

    You know there is a public speaker named rabbi Orlofsky,
    He has a piece on atheism
    A guy tells him he is an atheist. So he asks him if he read any philosophy works, when the guy tells him no, he responds,
    So your not an atheist. Your an idiot. You sat in back of the bus one day and said, is there a God?, yes, no, no, yes,? I’ll go with no.
    McConnell said there was no fraud.
    Almost 180MILLION VOTES were officially cast and your telling me there was NO fraud????
    Really???
    Oh so you don’t mean NO fraud, you mean not enough fraud to sway the election.
    Oh so then you are already agreeing there was fraud. So How exactly do you know how much fraud took place without investigating.
    Don’t tell me statistically it wouldn’t be enough, because statistical based on all signs before the election it was going to be a trump landslide.
    So basically your just taking McConnells word for it which he made based on absolutely nothing.
    Your call
    I’m not so gullible.
    AND EVEN IF YOU WERE TO BE CORRECT!!
    it’s irrelevant.
    The point is the rioters believed it. So they were in their constitutionally allowed rights to do what they did.
    You want to prove them wrong?
    Maybe your side should have done l little bit of that before it boiled over, instead of shutting down trump and not allowing him his day in court to actually judge what evidence he claimed to have.
    It’s possible to find evidence of fraud in a min, if your lucky or it’s widespread enough. To conclusively claim there was non requires exhaustive investigation.
    The liberal left was claiming almost instantaneously, that there was no evidence of fraud.
    That’s a claim that is false automatically due to its timing.
    How about you actually think for yourself instead of just swallowing what some politician or news reporter tells you

    in reply to: Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument #1948592
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Two points, made at large, or to whom they may apply
    1) the environment that led to the capital riot, is the frustration caused by four years of media lying straight about anything they could dream up to denigrate trump and all he has done and also many things he hasn’t, culminating in their complete and total shutdown of any objective investigation into a clearly suspicious election win by jrband koh. THAT is what created the frustration and anger to boil over into this riot, not some single speech by trump.
    2) why does everyone seem to agree so easily that the rioters (and by extension trump, according to those who say he is responsible for their actions) were doing anything wrong?
    Hasn’t anyone here ever Heard of the second amendment???
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

    In other words, one of the reasons citizenry is allowed to bear arms, is to prevent the federal government from descending into tyranny.
    I can think of no more tyranical situation, than the government stealing the people’s choice of president through vote fixing.
    According to those who believe the vote was stolen, the people actually have a constitutional right to attack the federal government!
    It is the height of absurdity to think they can only execute the right to attack the federal government for its Terrany with the permission of the federal government.
    So trump was actually impeached, for supposedly upholding the law.
    Sort Of shows you which side of the law the moronic dems are on

    in reply to: Lousy choices #1838640
    klugeryid
    Participant

    rational
    you’re totally correct
    however your original post was misleading
    you posted
    “So if you are a democrat.
    Shorten “you are” with “you’re”, as in “So if you’re a democrat””

    leading me to believe i had written
    “So if you are a democrat.”

    i did not go back to check my original post

    that being said, this is a blog
    most people dont pay attention to spelling (dont, don’t) errors or grammer or punctuations
    chances are if you cant figure out i meant “you are” without my using an apostrophe, you wouldn understand what i wrote anyway

    in reply to: Lousy choices #1838418
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Rational
    Huh?
    Don’t they mean the same thing?

    in reply to: Lousy choices #1838297
    klugeryid
    Participant

    I wasn’t bemoaning
    I was gloating

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Not exactly
    There is a difference between severe and severity.
    I said all along it is bad
    My point is only that things we think are not so bad are actually worse.
    Our compass is inaccurate if you will.
    In truth every sin is so calamitous, we would pass out if we really understood.
    But we don’t.
    So there is no such a thing as ”a little sin”
    In the hierarchy I personally know if left to my own devices id completely mess up the order. Because I would rate rape as from the worst sins.
    But here I see the Chafetz Chaim saying it’s not. Other sins that I’d think are not so bad are actually much worse.
    In no way does that equate with saying it’s OK to sin .
    Gotta go now
    Maybe more later

    klugeryid
    Participant

    By the way
    Do you mind telling me how you know when I post?
    By me I have to do a search of this thread
    It’s very frustrating

    klugeryid
    Participant

    I assume your post was written before my last post
    If not then I don’t understand

    You must find this line ” אם יפתנו היצר מחמת כעסו על פלוני שילך ויגנהו בפני אנשים ויוציא עליו שם רע, יתבונן בנפשו אלו היה היצר מפתהו לילך לבית הזונות, האם היה שומע לו?” Very puzzling! Of course people would Be ones/Mefatah whatt’s his question People say Motzi shem ra all the time of course they would do the not as bad aveira!

    This is addressed in my last post

    klugeryid
    Participant

    I realized this morning a possible misconception in what I’m saying.
    You are possibly viewing what I’m saying as follows.
    Let’s give an arbitrary severity rating to two sins, from our own minds
    So I’d say
    לשון הרע 10
    Rape 90
    Ready?
    Now I come along and tell you לשון הרע is worse than rape
    So basically I’m saying rape is maximum a 9
    I’m a sicko.

    But that’s not what I’m Saying.
    Let’s start over
    Let’s give an arbitrary severity rating to two sins, from our own minds
    So I’d say
    לשון הרע 10
    Rape 90
    Comes along to Torah and tells us, wrong!
    Rape IS a 90 but לשון הרע is at least 91!!

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Lashon harah dosnt have onesh of maamon

    It gets צרעת

    klugeryid
    Participant

    I guess we are talking different languages. The Chafetz Chaim says very clearly
    It’s worse to be מוציא שם רע that a woman was מזנה then to be מאנס her.
    Yes saying Rachel was מזנה is a bigger sin then being מאנס Rachel. Yes. Yes. Yes. It’s worse. Yes. Bigger. If he is a big למדן and he feels that he wants to sin between these two and he wants to do the smaller sin he would pick being מאנס the girl.
    I don’t know how I can be more clear and unhesitating.
    I’m getting lost in your example so I didn’t give clear answers.
    Apply what I said to your example and yes. That’s what I’m saying.
    But it’s not me saying it. It’s the Chafetz Chaim quoting a gemorah.
    And it doesn’t seem to sit well with you. Hence your examples.
    Which is exactly my point. ”our ” internal moral compass is sometimes at odds with the Torah’s moral compass.

    If I gleaned anything from your example, it’s that you think it’s absurd to say the fellow downgraded his evil status by actually raping the girl.
    It’s פשוט to you that that is worse. But that is exactly what the ח”ח is coming to oppose.
    He is specifically addressing that.
    He is saying it’s simple that nobody in his right mind would go be מזנה just because he is angry at his friend.
    Yet he will say לשון הרע WHICH IS MUCH WORSE as evidenced from the fact that for being מוציא שם רע the punishment is worse then raping (end quote)
    The ח”ח equated לשה”ר ומוציא שם רע
    The ח”ח equated their worseness over אונס ומפתה
    I don’t know why you are surprised at what I am saying.
    How else can you possibly read the words of the ח”ח ??
    I’m just reading.
    I’m not at all bothered because I’ve learned long ago that my gut feelings often don’t line up with the Torah. So I suspend my own judgement quite easily.
    So to me it seems odd.
    Big deal! my puny brain obviously is missing a lot of information that the Torah has.

    Sorry if I went long and redundant. I’m trying to be very clear so you don’t say I’m avoiding answering.
    Yes! saying מוציא שם רע is worse than raping someone.

    Clear enough?

    klugeryid
    Participant

    No you haven’t given me pause.
    (as an aside, For some reason this thread does not show up by me in the recently active threads. That’s why I missed it last response. Now I had to search it up to see if you responded.)
    Assuming that לשון הרע is not worse that מאנס he becomes less of an עבריין. Absolutely.
    I’m not so sure that’s true though.
    I would understand from the ח”ח/גמרא that לשה”רis also worse than being מאנס in which case he hasn’t really helped himself.
    But I have no problem to say, if your rubric is correct, then he has lowered his sin level by actually being מאנס her.
    That’s exactly what the ח”ח stated unambiguously
    It’s worse to be מוציא שם רע than to be מאנס
    Mathematically that is the same as saying it’s better to be מאנס then to be מוציא שם רע
    Why would I hesitate to say that.? I’d just be quoting the ח”ח!
    (I just think In your example I couldn’t answer that because the details didn’t add up.)

    in reply to: Hashkafah on watching the Super Bowl #1837689
    klugeryid
    Participant

    i hear

    klugeryid
    Participant

    Ubiq I just now saw that you answered.
    Thats not an argument on ubiq, As I said from the onset that is generally how severity is determined, but as we have demonstarted there are no fewer than 25 exceptions .
    So then I’m not sure your position.
    ”we generally assume that is so unless it doesn’t agree with mypersonal moral compass? ”

    A person will either be meanes someone or motzi shem ra. you would tell him better to be meanes?

    I will tell him neither
    ר אלישיב כבר פסק ”הלעיטהו לרשע וימות ” א
    Let him do what he wants, God will deal with him. You want to know in din which is worse?
    The חפץ חיים clearly states מוציא שם רע is worse.

    You are maintaining that he is now better than you first thought because he is no longer being motzei shem ra, is this correct?
    no. אין אדם משים עצמו רשע I don’t believe he did the עבירה so it remains מוציא שם רע

    in reply to: Michael Bloomberg #1837640
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Firstly
    I HAVE NEVER BEEN SO HAPPY TO BE WRONG!!
    secondly yabia you nailed trumps plan
    ”Bloomberg is too short. Americans love tall presidents.”

    in reply to: Littering #1837547
    klugeryid
    Participant

    OK
    It’s called auto correct and not really caring So not worth the effort
    Sorry it took you so many hours to figure it out

    in reply to: Hashkafah on watching the Super Bowl #1837533
    klugeryid
    Participant

    I hear, probably she is disgusted by seeing the grotesque costumes and activities they preform while singing.
    (lest one get the wrong idea from my comments, I neither watched or listened to the game or the half time shows, but news of what goes on, gets around.)

    in reply to: Littering #1837483
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Remember the Boston tea party?

    in reply to: Hashkafah on watching the Super Bowl #1837439
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Random,
    Anil is a woman. It’s probably OK for her to her female singers
    The lyrics???

    in reply to: Is trump really immoral #1837436
    klugeryid
    Participant

    I’m responding to the stupid liberals

    in reply to: Littering #1837435
    klugeryid
    Participant

    C a
    You can but why should I?

    in reply to: Littering #1837434
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Another genius
    Your also a moron 😛🤪🤡🤡

    in reply to: Is trump really immoral #1837013
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Never mind what “this” means. Is it actually the migrants complaining
    about how migrants are dealt with or is it American citizens?
    american citizens
    the migrants actually seem to say that trump is very fair

    in reply to: Is trump really immoral #1836839
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Also, I disagree with the reason you give here for why people bring their children along
    when attempting to move to another country (the alternative being what, exactly?).
    Random, you mean this ?
    I agree with you. That that is not the sole reason why they bring their children. Of course. They want to keep their family together.
    But when they get caught and say you can’t punish me because then my child….
    That’s when they are using their child as a human shield.
    What did they think would happen to their children when they got caught? They knew the danger when they left their house. Deal with it or admit you were banking on the fact that you felt somewhat immune because you have kids with you ”aka human shields ”
    I can’t see a third choice.
    By the way you never answered my question.
    You said ”you asked for this ”
    I asked you, ”I asked for what? ”
    I’m very bad at getting hints. I can think of way too many possibilities of what you could mean. The odds are against me guessing correctly. So how about you just tell me.

    in reply to: No more shopping bags! #1836837
    klugeryid
    Participant

    No, the law is on hold for a month (meaning they are not giving fines) and it’s being challenged in court
    So many stores are still giving out plastic bags

    in reply to: Israeli election #1836751
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Or if they will go for ”just one more” round of elections 🤣

    in reply to: Is trump really immoral #1836711
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Well according to your last post my answer to your question is
    No

    in reply to: Is trump really immoral #1836537
    klugeryid
    Participant

    That’s a very vague question.
    As per ubiq quoting the Oxford definition, yes
    As per the medrash I’m referencing, no.
    But that’s assuming you are referring to מידת סדום
    As in כופין אותו על מידת סדום which is cases of זה נהנה וזה לא חסר.
    When I said leading up to סדום I was referring to all types of illicit עריות and murder.
    I was using it as a colloquial expression.

    If you clarify your question bit more I’ll be happy to give a more direct answer

    in reply to: Is trump really immoral #1836458
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Reb Eliezer
    That is totally OK.
    (I personally think he cares a tremendous amount about the nation, albeit because he believes him glory is tied to the success of America), but for. The purpose of the discussion I’ll grant you that he cares not a whit about anyone in the world besides himself and he will sell everyone and everything down the river for a drop more personal glory.
    So what.
    His policies VIs a VIs morality in interpersonal relationships are moral.
    His opposition is the policy of godly destruction.
    You vote for him.
    (as an aside, when hashem has enough of the rampant homosexuality pushing in this country and decides to wipe it off the earth, how’s your welfare programs gonna help you out?
    Or do you not believe that ”hashem hates immorality ”
    Or do you just not care or think about tomorrow?

    in reply to: World Zionist Congress elections #1836426
    klugeryid
    Participant

    I voted
    Never saw anything asking me to affirm their belief in the “Jerusalem Program” which is the official platform of the World Zionist Organization.
    Where did I miss it?

    in reply to: World Zionist Congress elections #1836427
    klugeryid
    Participant

    I went back to look
    It’s there
    It’s an innocuous looking check box above the signature line.

    in reply to: Is trump really immoral #1836422
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Reb Moshe says you need to vote
    Rabbi miller says to vote for the candidate who will have more moral policies.
    Not which candidate themselves are more moral. Rather who will further morality in the country.
    Not who will further lead us down the road to sedom
    When faced with a choice of a president who will give money to the poor, and programs for the poor, and sent controlled apartments for the indigent, but will legalize gay marriage and abortion on demand
    Vs a president who will cut and or eliminate all those programs, but will hold on as much as he can, to marriage being a man and a woman, hold on to the fact that an unborn fetus has the status of a live human,
    We are mechuyav to choose the one who will cut the programs.
    We are supposed to worry about כבוד שמים and let הקב”ה worry about the cash.
    Somehow many people have it reversed.
    I’ll worry about the cash and let God worry about morality in the world.
    Feh !!!

    in reply to: Why is it worse? #1836293
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Not even people who feel entitled to call others idiots without explanation and then hide behind their comfort level.”

    Umm, that was 2 separate people.
    Really?
    ”Oh. My. Gosh. This has got to be *the* most ignorant, incorrectand uninformed comment yet. ”
    Written by you to me.
    point #2 – I don’t want to have a back and forth with you.”
    Sorry. I just don’t like your style and I am pretty sure I am entitled to engage per my comfort level
    Written by you to me

    You may want to spend some time discussing your split personality disorder with your group therapy rather than discussing some nameless posters opinion from the ywn coffee room.

    “ maybe you just should refrain from commenting, at least on authors whom you don’t want to engage with”

    Cute. I’m not sure what life is like for you in the 3D world but you don’t get that level of control over other people In here.

    That’s absolutely correct (see! on point response, targeted to your statement)
    However you are the one who wrote
    I just don’t like your style and I am pretty sure I am entitled to engage per my comfort level.
    I was just commenting if you only want to engage on your comfort level it would probably make sense to not engage someone who is beyond your comfort level.
    See that? Another response that is on target and responding directly to your comment after trying to understand it.

    I will grant you that my tone is snooty.
    It’s very simple.
    If I have a discussion of ideas, I try to keep my tone neutral. But as soon as it’s not a discussion but rather someone just calling me an idiot, well then it’s a different type of conversation.
    I have no issue engaging in whatever style conversation the other person wants.
    So if you want to have a conversation where the only thing is can you out snot the other side, I’m game for that too. It’s nothing personal.
    Have a great shabbos

    in reply to: Why is it worse? #1836288
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Nope. Nothing matters to me at all
    Not even people who feel entitled to call others idiots without explanation and then hide behind their comfort level.

    As others have pointed out here
    Most people comment here expecting to be critiqued and challenged.
    If that’s above your comfort level maybe you just should refrain from commenting, at least on authors whom you don’t want to engage with

    One thing I’ll grant you.
    You are absolutely correct
    I have no respect for opinions given as ”I say this so it must be so and I don’t need to explain or respond to a challenge ”

    in reply to: Why is it worse? #1836267
    klugeryid
    Participant

    The only support I will bring for this is the fact that I quoted ONE sentence, and you start listing ALL the points you made in the previous posts and problems I MAY have been alluding to. Why not just hear what I said and think about it?
    maybe because contrary to what you said
    “are not concerned with whether or not you heard their point,”
    i was actually trying to lock down your point of disagreement
    since you have difficulty expressing it i was trying to help you out. sorry

    I don’t have to bring it to anyone, we all were together when we read it.
    who is we and what did “we” say?

    so i went back
    you believe that one day of emotional abuse is enough to be damaging for life and requires immediate intervention?
    really?
    so if you saw a parent shouting at their kid in a supermarket, you’d call child protective services?
    i mean if 1 day is enough, why stop there, maybe 1 incident?

    I do believe that some statements really are so wrong that it doesn’t need to be explained.

    as a poster (me) so succinctly posted on a different thread,
    they may not have to, but they have to be able to be.
    if you cant explain it when challenged, then you probably shot from the hip and really have no basis for what you said

    in reply to: Why is it worse? #1836240
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Syag
    Good to see you read all my comments on all threads.
    So knowing I won’t try to prove myself wrong, to help you out, you helpfully provided me with an alternative.
    So sweet
    How’s about you bring it to someone and let me know what they say?
    Or better yet just tell me yourself since your so sure of yourself.

    As I see it, there are four areas of my post you can be disagreeing with
    1) emotional abuse can be life changing even from one days worth
    2) physical abuse cannot inflict permanent harm in one day
    3)we are not afraid of kids dying
    4) most people do not think the way I posted.

    Please feel free to let me know which choice or choices you go with.
    Or perhaps you have a different issue which I missed. I’d love to hear about it.

    This is why as frustrating as he may be, it’s enjoyable to argue with ubiq, (usually 😁) as wrong as I may think he is, and as sure of himself as he may think he is, he puts his cards on the table, he backs up what he says, he details his critique of what the other person said, and you can have an adult conversation.
    As opposed to you are now the second one to offer a variety of
    You are so wrong and you know it and it’s so simple why I don’t even have to say it.
    You do realize that that is a generic argument that can be used by anyone at anytime for any topic on any side of the topic.
    It’s about as substantive as a vacuum.

    in reply to: Mitt Romney is now persona non grata #1836218
    klugeryid
    Participant

    Jackk,
    Question for you.
    Which ”political rival ” did trump demand an investigation of?

    in reply to: Is trump really immoral #1836215
    klugeryid
    Participant

    My issue is that you should know by yourself that you’re wrong.
    But I don’t. If I did I wouldn’t have said it in the first place.
    Seems like you don’t know either, but realizing that my intellect is superior to yours, your asking me to do your work, since you are incapable of doing it.

    You asked for this.
    For what?

    Is your next question “Does it say anywhere ‘war crime’ is only if it’s part of a war?”
    NO I WASN’T GOING TO ASK THAT.
    Geneva Conventions… civilians… armed conflict

    “People coming across the border” are not involved in armed conflict (which is what the Geneva
    Conventions apply to) and cannot be classed as non-civilians as opposed to their children.

    Someone committing a crime, which he knows carries a certain punishment, who commits the crime while with his children so he can then say you can’t punish me because it will leave the children in a terrible predicament. That is classic human shield.

    The classic use of “human shield” is as a military law term with a specific meaning. (It’s also come to
    be used for any situation in which the tactic is used, but it has no legal ramifications outside war.)

    SO YOU ARE FINE WITH SOMEONE ROBBING A STORE AT GUNPOINT WHILE HOLDING THEIR CHILD IN FRONT OF THEM BECAUSE IT’S NOT A WAR OR ARMED ”CONFLICT ”?

    in reply to: If you vote democrat #1836206
    klugeryid
    Participant

    You חברה are barking up the wrong tree here.
    I personally know a specific case where a prominent rav told a pregnant teenager to abort. Granted it was around the empty day mark. But In dealing with that one specific instance I learned that unfortunately this is way more common than we would like it to be.
    And I don’t usually deal with these issues.
    So your not going to make any points by questioning the generality of abortion taking place in our communities with heterim.
    It’s the idea that abortion wherever, whenever, for whatever reason, is more in line with Torah View, than , strict only in life threatened cases ,allowed, that doesn’t sit well with me.
    Neither match. One allows murder. The other outlaws what should be permitted.
    I believe דינים allows them to be more מחמיר than the Torah. Not more lenient.
    Ubiq seems to disagree

    in reply to: Why is it worse? #1836211
    klugeryid
    Participant

    So we fear kid’s death?

    Yes.
    Emotional abuse requires long term for it to be problematic.
    So one more day while we investigate usually won’t make a difference.
    However physical abuse, during that day the kid could be maimed for life, or dead.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 978 total)